← All Phrases

“Section 41(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 41Section 41(1)883 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 41(1) is Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (227 ITR 172), cited in 621 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 41(1)

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT
227 ITR 172 · 1997 · Supreme Court
621
citing judgments

Interest income earned on deposits, particularly before the commencement of business operations or as a requirement for business licensing, is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, and cannot be treated as business income or set off against interest on borrowed funds.

CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.
222 ITR 344 · 1996 · Supreme Court
223
citing judgments

Unclaimed deposits received in the course of trading transactions and sundry credit balances written back are taxable as business income under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as they constitute a cessation of trading liability.

CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd.
261 ITR 275 · 2003 · Supreme Court
204
citing judgments

A liability recognized in accordance with the Accounting Standards prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) is an allowable expense for income tax purposes.

CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd.
236 ITR 518 · 1999 · Supreme Court
203
citing judgments

For the purpose of Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, a liability is considered to have ceased only when the creditor actively releases or writes off the amount, or when the liability ceases to exist in the assessee's books; mere expiry of the limitation period for recovery does not constitute cessation of liability.

CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
404 ITR 1 · 2018 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The waiver of a loan taken for acquiring capital assets is considered a capital receipt and is not taxable as income under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The ruling distinguishes between the waiver of trading liabilities and capital liabilities for tax purposes.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT
261 ITR 501 · 2003 · High Court
147
citing judgments

Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act cannot be invoked if the assessee has not been granted a deduction for the relevant liability in earlier years.

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
201 ITR 684 · 1993 · Supreme Court
133
citing judgments

Compensatory interest or damages paid for a breach of contract, arising in the normal course of business, are allowable as a deduction under section 37(1) as wholly and exclusively incurred for business purposes. This principle extends to indirect taxes paid in the course of business, which are admissible as business expenditure.

CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
341 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
108
citing judgments

The Legislature abolished terminal depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) and the taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2), replacing these provisions with the requirement to reduce sale proceeds of depreciable assets from the block of assets.

Judgments citing Section 41(1)

The Satara Zilla Krishi Bank Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Satara vs. ACIT, Satara, Cir-Satara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 2155/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2155 & 2156/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Satara Zilla Krishi Bank Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Ajinkya Complex, 512, Ch. Shivaji Road, Camp, Sadar Bazar, Satara-415001 Pan: Aaaat1502B अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Satara Circle, Vs. Satara प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Ms. Renuka Arunrao Ghatge Shri S. Sadananda Singh 11-11-2025 28-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 15.07.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”/“Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay") 2020-21. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 41(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

JCIT(OSD), Delhi vs. Avon Meters Private Limited, Punjab

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 328/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40A(7)Section 68

extent of Rs8,71,051/- u/s 69C of the Act. 8. Further during assessment proceedings, AO observed that from the of section 41(1) of the Act. When the assessee was asked to submit the details, in response assessee has submitted details of 42 parties outstanding to the extent

Avon Meters Pvt Ltd, Mohali vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 5794/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40A(7)Section 68

extent of Rs8,71,051/- u/s 69C of the Act. 8. Further during assessment proceedings, AO observed that from the of section 41(1) of the Act. When the assessee was asked to submit the details, in response assessee has submitted details of 42 parties outstanding to the extent

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Kanpur vs. Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/LKW/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-5, Kanpur 84/105, Kailash Motors Building, G.T. Road, Afim Kothi, Kanpur-208003 Pan: Aaccc4267E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A)- 2, Kanpur Dated 25.09.2017, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y. 2006-07 On 23.12.2008. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,32,366/- U/S 14A Without Taken Into Consideration That The Expenditure Incurred In Relation To Exempt Income. 02. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 99,56,258/-Without Appreciating That The Provisions Of Sec. 50C Have Been Invoked By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Stamp Valuation Of The Property. The Assessee Has Not Claimed Before The Assessing Office To Make The Reference To The Valuation Officer U/S 55A Of It Act, 1961. 3 That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,20,90,164/- On Account Of Loss Claimed On Sale Of Shares Without Appreciating That The Transaction As Claimed Were Sham & Was Incorporated Only To Evade The Capital Gain Earned On The Sale Of Properties. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Ignoring The Facts Noted By The Assessing Officer Regarding The Transaction Of Sale Of Shares.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(X)Section 41(1)Section 50CSection 55A

debts claimed as unrecoverable Rs. 4,05,770/- iii. On account of cessation of liabilities under section 41(1) Rs. 2,82,364/- 2 Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2006-07 iv. Inadmissible depreciation on car Rs. 33,762/- v. Misc. expenses Rs. 1,75,498/- vi. Addition on account ... account of loss claimed on sale of shares. While the other additions made by the AO on account of bad debts, liability under section 41(1) and misc. expenses were also deleted, the Department did not prefer any appeal against the same. However, the Department has filed an appeal against

Alicon Castalloy Ltd, Pune vs. PCIT, -1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1377/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1377/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Alicon Castalloy Ltd., V The Pr.Commissioner Of Gat No.1426, Village S Income Tax-1, Pune. Shikrapur, Taluka Shirur, Pune – 412208. Pan: Aabcp0252B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak Revenue By Shri Aditya Shukla – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.03.2025 For Assessment Year 2020-21 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The Act, Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1] The Learned Pr.C1T Erred In Revising The Asst, Order Passed U/S

Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”ए” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Wheatons Design Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT / DCIT, Circle -6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 781/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita rinesh, JCIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

situation and if excess provision is found after completion of scheme, legislation has remedy to tax excessive provision by applying the provision of section 41(1) of the Act. Therefore, order of Ld. CIT(A) is affirmed. Shree Salasar Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 107 DTR 225 (Jpr.) (Trib

Raviraj Varadharaj, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ncw 8(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 2468/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2468/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 & S.A. No. 85/Chny/2025 [In Ita No. 2468/Chny/2025] Raviraj Varadharaj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 16/08, Duraisamy Colony, Non Corporate Ward 8(2), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan:Amopv6065A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Swaminathan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Ground No. A, Raised By The Assessee In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri V. Swaminathan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 41(1)Section 68

allowed. 9. Ground No. C, raised by the assessee in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) towards remission or cessation under section 41(1) of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, no confirmation has been received from M/s. Fortune Agro Foods under section ... Vigneshwara Traders, Reshma and Associates and Quad Enterprises. Thus, the Assessing Officer adopted 20% of total sundry creditors and disallowed the same under section 41(1) of the Act vide his reasons recorded in 5 I.T.A. No.2468/Chny/25 & S.A. No. 85/Chny25 para 7.4 of the assessment order

M/S. Arun Excello Realty Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2267/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2267/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S. Arun Excello Realty Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, 18, Bhattad Towers West Cott Income Tax, Road, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aafca8363E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Raised 4 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 41(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 41(1)

emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2 I.T.A. No.2267/Chny/25 3. At the outset, it is noted that according to the Assessing ... respect of M/s. SVA Architect as outstanding since past few years. A show-cause note issued to the assessee proposing the addition under section 41(1) of the Act, wherein, the assessee admitted the said amount will be offered for taxation in FY 2023-24 (AY 2024-25). The Assessing

Mridul Shashikant Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. PCIT(Central)-1, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 3645/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

3645/Mum/2025 difference in amount of opening/closing balance of liabilities shown as compared to total liabilities which ought to have been disallowed under section 41(1) and, thus, order passed by Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue, since Assessing Officer after applying his mind and making

Mridul Shashikant Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. PCIT Central -1, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 3644/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

3645/Mum/2025 difference in amount of opening/closing balance of liabilities shown as compared to total liabilities which ought to have been disallowed under section 41(1) and, thus, order passed by Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue, since Assessing Officer after applying his mind and making

ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurugram vs. Sunil Kumar, Gurugram

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

foremost substantive grievance hardly carries any merit which stands rejected in very terms. 5. The Revenue’s second substantive ground seeking to revive section 41(1) assessment of liability addition of Rs.3,83,71,515/- is also found to be carrying no merit as the learned Assessing Officer had treated

Shri Prakash Malji Bhanushali, Mumbai vs. Int Tax, Ward-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2744/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Prakash Malji Bhanushali International Tax, B 1502 Tower 1 Ward-1(2)(1), Lbs Marg, Vikas Paradise, Mumbai Mulund West, Vs. Mumbai – 400080 (Pan: Anjpb5957H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Siddharth Srivastava, Ca Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271Section 28Section 41(1)Section 68

Malji Bhanushali AY 2014-15 Yashraj Enterprises does not exist on the address available. Ld. Assessing Officer thus, made the addition by applying section 41(1). 4. In the appeal before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has made multiple written submissions including one dated 21.04.2025, another one dated

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Govindam Agro Foods Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1117/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Singh Rajput, AR
Section 250Section 41(1)

loan must have been used for working capital purposes and expenses claimed on account of same, he held that the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act were attracted which required trading liabilities incurred by the assessee which had seized to exist, to be treated as income ... assessee. Accordingly, he added the amount of outstanding unsecured loans of Rs.1.06 Crore to the income of the assessee invoking Section 41(1) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), however, deleted the addition noting that the loans were not utilized for working capital purposes but in fact were

Fexprime Finance Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1361/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 41(1)

offered an income of INR 14,45,64,504 for taxation, which has been duly credited to the Profit & Loss Account as per section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As a result, the addition leads to double taxation of the same income of the Appellant, which ... amount)”, assessee has duly declared both the amounts which are written back and credited to the Profit & Loss account as income as per section 41(1) of the Act. The relevant page is 27 of the paper book filed by the assessee. It is also seen that assessee vide response

Foster Wheels (Gb) Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, International Tax Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 927/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 245M

been allowed as deduction, the cessation/ reversal of such liability cannot be taxed, in terms of Section 41(1) of the Act. 11. The Ld. CIT, DR appearing for the Revenue objected to the admissibility of the impugned claim on the ground that, the same was not made

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

ITA 684/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

therefore the amount recovered now is not offered to tax. The AO held that the amount recovered should be brought to tax under section 41(1) by stating that the impugned amount had been claimed as deduction in earlier years under section 36(1)(viia). Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal ... addition made by the AO. 4. The ld. AR submitted that the recovery of bad-debts does not fall within the purview of section 41(1) since the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(viia) is not for a loss, expenditure or trade-in-liability

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 661/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

therefore the amount recovered now is not offered to tax. The AO held that the amount recovered should be brought to tax under section 41(1) by stating that the impugned amount had been claimed as deduction in earlier years under section 36(1)(viia). Aggrieved assessee filed further appeal ... addition made by the AO. 4. The ld. AR submitted that the recovery of bad-debts does not fall within the purview of section 41(1) since the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(viia) is not for a loss, expenditure or trade-in-liability

Aam India Manufacturing Corporation Private Limited, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1205/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 274Section 41(1)

trade payables 6. Erred in sustaining an ad-hoc addition of INR 7,53,20,000 being 10% of total trade payables under section 41(1) of the Act 7. Erred in holding that the trade payables have not been fully substantiated through documentary evidences without appreciating the submissions filed

Shanti Lal Bhandari, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1031/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Kumar Meena,Addl.CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 41(1)

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुरन्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं

Aslam Kassam Merchant, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4695/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2015-16 Aslam Kassam Merchant, Income Tax Officer, 85, Ground Floor, Ward-20(1)(2), Victoria Road, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Mustafa Bazar, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400010. Pan : Aefpm5272D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pravin B. Shetty For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 26-05-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Pravin B. ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

without providing any evidence that the said liability is no more payable by way of remission or cessation as required under the section 41(1) of the IT Act 1961. 2 2.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Faceless Assessing Officer has not dispute the fact ... liabilities were not written back to the profit and loss account for the year under consideration, and hence there is no applicability of Section 41(1) and in the absence of such write back the said amounts in the books, it is open to the AO to contend, dehors